FCAT IS NO JOKE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY
The realization that FCAT is finally here has students
understanding that this assessment is challenging and
requires them to use the strategies teachers have been
teaching not just this school year, but in previous
academic years.
Thus this blog is a reminder that for all parents:
FCAT IS NO JOKE PARENTS TAKE IT SERIOUSLY
this assessment is not for punishment, nor a projection of
future failures or drop out rates, but a gauging where added
remedial work needs to be done.
To help parents understand the importance if they have
not realized it as of yet, the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test or FCAT 2.0 is an evolving assessment.
It is a more meticulous test with greater expectations of student
growth and knowledge across all grade levels. Parents may still
be thinking of the past FCAT, but last year the State Board of
Education (SBE) raised FCAT cut scores for each passing levels:
thus raising the achievement bar.
Parents must take a more active role in helping their children
in their accountability and responsibility for academic success and
growth. Any time high academic standards are expected, parents
cannot (not that they are) sit on the sidelines and expect teachers
to do everything. The first educator in a child’s life is their parents.
Even parents that do not think they have the educational background
to help with homework, class projects, etc, parents should attend
PTO/PTA meetings, arrange for and attend parent/teacher meetings,
visit their child’s classroom, checking academic folders, participate
not just when field trips or special occasions happen and arrange for
tutoring which is FREE in DCPS at many schools. Additional resources
are the Parent Involvement Centers at schools that hold workshops just
for parents. The goal for DCPS Title I Parent Involvement mission
is to empower parents and families to support their children's
cognitive and social-emotional development.
More information can be found at:
http://www.duvalschools.org/static/aboutdcps/departments/special/titleone/Parent_Centers/index.asp
The changes in FCAT 2.0 can be seen in the potential for passing scores
to dip. As an example, students that have consistently scored Level 3
(passing rate) their entire school career could easily score below the
passing level with the new imposed standards. The biggest change
likely be in grades 3, 4, and 10.
What will this mean in terms of student performance on the
newer FCAT 2.0?
There will be an increase in the number of students failing to pass
FCAT 2.0.
There will be an increase in the number of students having to take
remediation classes for the portions of FCAT 2.0 that they failed.
Secondary impact: the student's ability to take elective courses
(i.e. band, art, drama, music, etc.) will likely be limited due to the
addition of remediation courses.
This information was obtained from Duval County Public Schools;
there are also media reports of further information that the public
should be aware.
The important information is that lower FCAT test scores do
not mean students learn less. The indication is students have
work to do to master new curriculums to be successfully. Parental
support is increasingly needed to help manage student learning,
student behavior, student motivation and make sure the mindset
on education is paramount.
Parents there are several more days of testing for FCAT, be sure
to get your child or children to school on time and prepared.
Provide positive reinforcement, uplifting advice and inspirational
words. All students need support during this assessment time.
More information to help parents can be found at:
FCAT Scores Impact Scheduling
http://mayportmirror.jacksonville.com/military/mayport-mirror/
2012-03-14/story/fcat-scores-can-impact-student-s-schedule
FCAT 2.0
http://www.duvalschools.org/fcat2/index.html
FCAT Explorer
http://www.fcatexplorer.com/
Superintendent Ed Pratt-Dannals discusses FCAT 2.0 scoring changes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFsSSEuQ9KA
Wonder how many A and B schools fall this year. Teachers to get bonuses based on student's performance.
I wonder if our council will vote a tax increase to fund our schools better so our students can be better prepared. They voted year after year to lower this and that which eventually means less money for kids. How low do we go to learn?
I have taken FCAT myself personally. It is a fucking JOKE. There are so many flaws with the FCAT testing standards. It is not a TRUE measure of merits and intelligence of the students.
What it is really sad is that schools has to compete for money by justifying their students and their FCAT performance.
This is a NOT GOOD mix at all.
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 17, 2012, 08:24:07 AM
I have taken FCAT myself personally. It is a fucking JOKE. There are so many flaws with the FCAT testing standards. It is not a TRUE measure of merits and intelligence of the students.
What it is really sad is that schools has to compete for money by justifying their students and their FCAT performance.
This is a NOT GOOD mix at all.
-Josh
{Insert Smart Assed Font} If you're going to say a Standardized Test is, "...a fucking JOKE...", you should probably proof read your post.
Standardized tests are meant to be, well, tests, but the FCAT is treated as a bar that has to be passed or students don't get move up or graduate and schools receive less funding. However, considering how much stake the state puts into the things, it should not be taken lightly.
QuoteIt is not a TRUE measure of merits and intelligence of the students.
It was never meant to be that. it measures how well the students learning standards in Math, Reading, Writing, and Science.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 17, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
QuoteIt is not a TRUE measure of merits and intelligence of the students.
It was never meant to be that. it measures how well the students learning standards in Math, Reading, Writing, and Science.
And then passes furious judgment upon them and their school based on that.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 17, 2012, 09:12:13 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 17, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
QuoteIt is not a TRUE measure of merits and intelligence of the students.
It was never meant to be that. it measures how well the students learning standards in Math, Reading, Writing, and Science.
And then passes furious judgment upon them and their school based on that.
Furious? Not sure the test passes judgement at at all. Standards are set, curriculum devised, lesson plan taught, student tested. If students fail to achieve the standards set there is a problem... if too many students at a particular school fail to meet standards then there is a problem at the school and remediation is required. What is the issue?
Quote
There will be an increase in the number of students failing to pass
FCAT 2.0.
There will be an increase in the number of students having to take
remediation classes for the portions of FCAT 2.0 that they failed.
Secondary impact: the student's ability to take elective courses
(i.e. band, art, drama, music, etc.) will likely be limited due to the
addition of remediation courses.
Once again, the arts take a back seat and get pushed a little bit closer to irrelevance.
IMO, the issue, BridgeTroll, is
a) students are taught to pass the test and not to think critically or analytically. This sets them up for future failures; and
b) with even less emphasis on the arts (aren't there a number schools already with either very limited or no music or art programs?) which leads to a mass-production of more drones taught the test with no encouragement of creative pursuits or outlets.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 17, 2012, 09:18:41 AM
Furious? Not sure the test passes judgement at at all. Standards are set, curriculum devised, lesson plan taught, student tested. If students fail to achieve the standards set there is a problem... if too many students at a particular school fail to meet standards then there is a problem at the school and remediation is required. What is the issue?
The only issue that I would have, real or percieved, is that the lower scoring schools recieve less funding.
I don't claim to know how the system works, but I do know that my son, being in a magnet school, is taking advanced classes and earning high school credits while in the 6th grade which will help him later, but his true purpose there is to help raise the schools FCAT average. The teachers should get paid more if their classes are scoring higher than average on the test. Those teachers should also be dispersed around the school system, after, say, 4 years of bringing in a 4-5 average, in order to bring help other schools bring their grades up - while keeping their higher rate of pay based on past performance. IE, the teacher should be rewarded for above average performance for a period of time. That teacher should then be challenged by being reassigned to a lower scoring school. That teacher should not be punished (lose their incentive pay) because the test grades aren't up to standard. Although they should be allowed a window for another transfer. [sorry, rambling]
I don't feel that the school's funding should be determined based on scores, because it would seem to me that the lower scoring schools probably need the most help.
Quote from: Doctor_K on April 17, 2012, 09:33:49 AM
a) students are taught to pass the test and not to think critically or analytically. This sets them up for future failures; and
Did you think less criticallyor analytically when you took the SAT / ACT? I'm finding it's the same thing, just done on a yearly basis. They are taught the concepts in class and are having to use those concepts to pass the test. It's no different.
Quote from: Doctor_K on April 17, 2012, 09:33:49 AM
b) with even less emphasis on the arts (aren't there a number schools already with either very limited or no music or art programs?) which leads to a mass-production of more drones taught the test with no encouragement of creative pursuits or outlets.
I tend to believe the bigger problem with this is the financing. If kids show a musical or artistic ability and have the grades, there are several immersion programs that they can apply to via the magnet program. Unfortunately, you are correct in the fact that the less fortunate kids [read: low scoring students] and maybe the one's that could use it the most, are left out due to the money crunch.
Quote from: Doctor_K on April 17, 2012, 09:33:49 AM
Quote
There will be an increase in the number of students failing to pass
FCAT 2.0.
There will be an increase in the number of students having to take
remediation classes for the portions of FCAT 2.0 that they failed.
Secondary impact: the student's ability to take elective courses
(i.e. band, art, drama, music, etc.) will likely be limited due to the
addition of remediation courses.
Once again, the arts take a back seat and get pushed a little bit closer to irrelevance.
IMO, the issue, BridgeTroll, is
a) students are taught to pass the test and not to think critically or analytically. This sets them up for future failures; and
b) with even less emphasis on the arts (aren't there a number schools already with either very limited or no music or art programs?) which leads to a mass-production of more drones taught the test with no encouragement of creative pursuits or outlets.
In responce to a) Not really sure what "taught to the test" or "taught to pass the test means. If standards are set, and curriculum's are devised based on the standards, and the lessons are taught... the next step is to test to see that the students meet the standards set.
As to b) FCAT was designed to test the 4 basic core skills. Most would think that once those are mastered arts and music and sports are highly desireable...
When was the last time ANY of you guys have taken the FCAT?
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 17, 2012, 09:57:28 AM
When was the last time ANY of you guys have taken the FCAT?
-Josh
I was helping study for it last week, why?
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 17, 2012, 09:57:28 AM
When was the last time ANY of you guys have taken the FCAT?
-Josh
Never...why?
I've never taken it either - it wasn't invented yet when I was in high school, and I went to private school, so I wouldn't have had to take it. However, I work in higher ed, and know a lot about how it works.
The SAT (and ACT) are totally different than FCAT. They are college placement tests, intended to gauge students' learning for placement in college. It's chiefly the colleges that look at these scores - and in Florida, you don't need them to go to community college. (These tests are becoming more and more problematic, but that's really a different subject).
On the other hand, the FCAT is administered every year, and rather than being a gauge, it's basically a certification you must pass to ever move on. Additionally, it determines how schools are funded. Better performing schools receive more funding. As such, schools have realigned themselves from a mission of teaching students to "teaching students to pass the FCAT". The tests become even more troublesome as students get older and have the choice to take different classes that suit them, but are still stuck taking the same test.
It's a really homogenized, lowest-common-denominator form of teaching, attached to a regressive form of funding. The intention is good, but the execution is Florida shoddy.
Just asking questions as I know you work in higher education... When you say...
QuoteIt's a really homogenized, lowest-common-denominator form of teaching
I don't disagree that it is "homogenized"... but again...isn't that a function of standards and curriculum? Also... you say "lowest common denominator"... from my perspective this means it should be pretty easy to pass. If students and schools are having issues with the lowest common denominator... they are in BIG trouble with and average or high denominator.
Quoteit's basically a certification you must pass to ever move on.
What is wrong with "certifying" that the student has learned the standards set before being advanced? This is pretty common practice in life...
Quoteschools have realigned themselves from a mission of teaching students to "teaching students to pass the FCAT".
I still do not understand this phrase. As a teacher... you create a set of learning objectives when creating a lesson plan. After teaching the students from your plan... you then test them to ensure the objectives were met. In effect... "teaching to the test".
The problem with the FCAT isn't with standardizing expectations, it's with how it's been executed. The test is not supposed to be the goal of teaching. Education is the goal, the test is a test to see how students are faring toward that goal. At this point, however, we've made passing the FCAT the only part of education that the state cares about - and there are serious questions about the viability of what it even measures.
You're right that students who struggle with the FCAT would struggle even more with higher standards, but that's the other part of the problem (the main problem). More funding goes to the schools that are already doing better with the FCAT. Instead of gauging which students need more help, the state just take funding away from their schools and gives it to better performers in other neighborhoods. It's the definition of regressive.
Again, the intention is solid - they're trying to incentivize teachers and schools to get better results. But instead they funnel money away from the students who need the most help. This type of thinking is characteristic of our fine state.
There are definitely flaws with this system. Clearly, the stakes have become too high, and a very rigid framework has been put in place for improvement that obviously does not work. Take all of these low performing high schools for example. When a school earns low school grade and/or does not meet AYP for a certain number of years there is a very specific battery of additional requirements placed on them that may include hiring consultants and restructuring and a whole host of things, but these schools do not seem to be improving (except by changing how the grades are computed apparently). Or take for instance that a student's promotion or retention can be taken out of the hands of families and teachers and placed into the hands of a test. Who has the deepest interest in the success of our children, the government or families? I learned early on in my teacher training that assessments inform our decisions, but it seems our assessments are making them.
Secondly, the curriculum materials are often subpar. I have found that all of the curriculum resources I have been given are poorly aligned to the standards. Let me give you an example. I teach 2nd grade, and the standard tells me that my students should be able to identify the theme of text. However, there is no lesson pertaining to this skill which is difficult for a 2nd grader to master. Because I am an alert teacher, I have made adjustments to make sure the gaps are taught, but sadly not all teachers have the skill set to develop a lesson from scratch. In fact, I'm fairly certain that not all teachers even notice that the our state approved basal reading series has gaps like these.
Which brings me to the next point: maybe we're focused too much on the wrong test. Did you know that if you have a bachelor's degree in any field and pass a test you can become a teacher? Needless to say, a lot of teachers are not really prepared to manage a classroom on their own (especially in their first few years of teaching), and urban schools tend to have higher numbers of these inexperienced, unprepared teachers (because more sage teachers have sense to stay away from difficult schools I guess). We need to rethink teacher training and licensure if we have any hope of improvement. I said on another thread that I think that we need to consider a tiered approach would require new teachers to begin as associate teachers (who are paid less) who are required to co-teach with a more experienced master teacher. That system provides appropriate support and oversight to young and/or struggling teachers, opportunities for advancement for teachers (much better way to motivate than we'll close your school), and provides a little relief for stretched budgets.
And regarding money, I don't think that's our primary problem with education. It's really how it is used that's a problem sometimes. If we invest millions more in curriculums that don't work or teachers and staff that don't have the right skills, we're going to be right back in the same boat. Not to mention that we spend way more money than we need to on the FCAT which could be better allocated in other areas. Show the public that we use the money wisely, and I think people will be more apt to open their pocketbooks when the need arises.
FB, aside from your theory of a tiered system for teachers (which could be implemented as well because it makes sense), how would you feel if the school system 'spread the wealth' so to speak with their staff. I'll try to provide an example of what I'm talking about though it may seem that I'm rambling.
Also, I have zero knowledge of what an 'average' should be, so just go with the numbers as presented.
Facts: The average at school 'A' is 3.1. The state average is 2.6.
A teacher, Joe, has been at school 'A' for 3 years, gradually improving his class FCAT average from a 2.8, 3.4 to 3.9. Year four, he has a 4.1. In addition to his base pay + annual raise, Joe gets a bump in pay in years 2,3 & 4 based on a formula, but because not only are his classes scoring higher than the state average, but they're also scoring higher than the school average.
After year 4, Joe, because his classes have routinely scored above the school average, shouldn't he be moved to a lesser scoring school, much like our magnet students get moved, in order to help bring up the county wide average? The schools get the same money, spread evenly, the teachers get incentive pay for high scoring classes and by spreading out the smart kids (magnet programs in failing schools) and good teachers (magnet program for teachers) shouldn't we increase our overall scores?
Buckeye, I think the last thing you said is one of the smartest things I've heard in a long time. It is about how the money is used, not the amount. The problem is that too often when people see money being spent with weak results, their instinct isn't to say "this money isn't being spent wisely and effectively, let's pull up our sleaves and figure out how to make it work", they say "cut that spending". And now it's even worse, as they funnel what money there is to schools that are already doing better at the expense of the schools that truly need help the most.
Westsider, I think it's wise to move use resources strategically. That's one of the advantages of using the tiered system I talked about. Under that system you could not overload a school with novice teachers because associate teachers would have to be paired with a master teacher. Of course, getting to a master teacher status couldn't be just an automatic thing based on seniority; it would need to be performance based, or it really takes the teeth out of the program.
There would need to be a change in how business is done at the district level though because with the current setup principals really compete with each other to get a better stable of teachers than the others. A principal that knows how to work the system can avoid getting saddled with novice teachers. Every year after school starts they take a count of how many students actually attend each school, and then the budget is adjusted. If a school has lower than expected enrollment teachers often get surplussed (involuntarily transferred) based on seniority. What an experienced principal will do is use surplus to get a poor performing teacher out of that school, but that teacher has to go somewhere within the system. So what an experienced principal will do if she needs to add additional teachers is wait until all surplus ed teachers have been placed before hiring. The placement of teachers really happens more at the school level than the district level though, so it isn't as strategic as it could be.
As far as the pay goes, my understanding is that they are transitioning to a system similar to what you're talking about for all new hires. They're in the process of implementing a new teacher assessment system that has a large component tied to student achievement which will then be tied to teacher pay. The problem is that they are implementing the idea before they have a complete plan. For example, my kids don't take an FCAT, and no one can seem to tell me what assessment will be used to determine half of my evaluation score. I'm not worried because I've scored highly effective on the one half of my evaluation already, but this type of situation really highlights how poorly things are run at both the district level. The state level is even worse. Not surprising that there is so much distrust between all parties in our educational system.
And thanks, Tacachale.
I guess it's a good thing I use a pseudonym on here. My bosses wouldn't be happy hearing all that. lol.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on April 17, 2012, 10:17:53 PM
I guess it's a good thing I use a pseudonym on here. My bosses wouldn't be happy hearing all that. lol.
Hahaha. You could always use the backpage of the Folio to express how you really feel. ;)
Unfortunately, the poor performing teachers need to be let go or at least constantly re-evaluated on a semester by semester basis. Hopefully they're just not comfortable in the class setting, being in charge of X amoung of kids, - something that can be corrected, but the one's that just don't know how to teach..... they're a detriment to the kids and the system in general. Education, at least to me, isn't one of those field that you can be in 'just to get by'.
And if you used a lower starting pay (tiered as you suggested), but demonstrated a clear path to making better money, in addition to bonuses for strong testing classes, I think you would incentivise the career path enough that even the one's going through the motions would have reason to perk up.
Now that we're preaching a performance based incentive to teachers, how would the unions react? I would assume poorly, because unions are notorious for trying to level the playing field for all employees regardless of performance. So unfortunately, no matter how much sense this makes or how much better it could potentially be, the one's who have to sign off are the union leaders. And this is the main reason that I find unions (mostly) abhorrent. They tend to halt progress in favor of equality for all, when they could really benefit everyone by changing their stance.
I'm not union, but I'm sure they'd have a hissy fit about this whole idea. You're right though. That's why we can't afford to give a novice teacher complete autonomy off the bat. A student can't afford a wasted year. I say give new teachers the support they need and a little time to develop, and if they can't perform we need to cut ties. Actually St. John's implemented some of the ideas I'm talking about when we first started having budget cuts. It's all doable.